REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Ramesh Kumar Mittal Appellant

V/S

Probal Kumar Ghoshal Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

NIBARAN CHANDRA ROY V. THE KING-EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
ULLIGAPPA V. S. MOHAN RAO [REFERRED TO]
MD. SHAHARIYAR BAIG V. R.P. BHAL [REFERRED TO]
HAMEEDIA HARDWARE STORES V. D. MOHAN LAL SOWCAR [REFERRED TO]
SANTILAL DULICHAND SHAH V. RAMESH CHANDRA GUJRATI [REFERRED TO]
BAVA HAJEE HAMSA VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
PUWADA VENKATESWARA RAO VS. CHIDAMANA VENKATA RAMANA [REFERRED TO]
GADAKH YASHWANTRAO KANKARRAO VS. E V ALIAS BALASAHEB VIKHE PATIL [REFERRED TO]
BHOLA NATH DAS VS. BHOLANATH BORAL [REFERRED TO]
MONO RANJAN DASGUPTA VS. SUCHITRA GANGULY [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL ROY VS. ARATI CHATTERJEE [REFERRED TO]
MEGHJI KANJI PATEL VS. KUNDANMAN CHAMANLAL MEHTANI [REFERRED TO]
D WESTON VS. PEARY MOHAN DASS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the ground of personal requirement. The said suit has been decreed.

(2.) THE reasonable requirement of the plaintiff has been stated in paragraphs 4 to 9 of the plaint and the same has been traversed in paragraphs 8 to 12 of the written statement. It is not disputed that the plaintiff's family consists of himself and his wife, two sons and two daughters. According to the plaintiff he requires 5 rooms and he at the time of institution of the suit was in possession of only one room. It is stated that the plaintiff's married daughter Smt. Chhanda Mukherjee owing to shortage of accommodation cannot also come to Calcutta with her children. It was further stated that the plaintiff's eldest son could not be married owing to want of accommodation.

(3.) THE learned Judge upon considering the materials on record came to the following conclusions :

Click here to view full judgment.

RAMESH KUMAR MITTAL Vs. PROBAL KUMAR GHOSHAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address